Reply to “A Reader”

Published:Iskra, No. 16, February 1, 1902.

      Published according to theIskratext.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Foreign Languages Publishing House,1961,

      Moscow,Volume 5,

      pages344-346.Translated:Transcription\Markup:R. CymbalaandD. WaltersPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2003).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

Thefollowing letter has been received by the Editorial
      Board:

“Indealing with the question of agitation (if I am not mistaken, in
      No. 13)Iskraopposes agitational leaflets (pamphlets of two or
      three pages) on political subjects. In the opinion of the editors, news
      papers can successfully replace such literature. Newspapers are, of
      course, a fine thing. Nobody would dream of disputing that. But can they
      replace leaflets that are specially intended for widespread distribution
      among the masses? The editors have received a letter from Russia in which
      a group of workers-agitators gave their opinion on this
      subject.Iskra’sreply is obviously due to a
      misunderstanding. The question of agitation is as important today as the
      question of demonstrations. It is, therefore, to be desired that the
      editors raise this question once again and on this occasion devote to it
      greater attention.“AReader”

“Indealing with the question of agitation (if I am not mistaken, in
      No. 13)Iskraopposes agitational leaflets (pamphlets of two or
      three pages) on political subjects. In the opinion of the editors, news
      papers can successfully replace such literature. Newspapers are, of
      course, a fine thing. Nobody would dream of disputing that. But can they
      replace leaflets that are specially intended for widespread distribution
      among the masses? The editors have received a letter from Russia in which
      a group of workers-agitators gave their opinion on this
      subject.Iskra’sreply is obviously due to a
      misunderstanding. The question of agitation is as important today as the
      question of demonstrations. It is, therefore, to be desired that the
      editors raise this question once again and on this occasion devote to it
      greater attention.

Anyonewho takes the trouble to read our reply to the letter from
      “Southern Workers” in No. 13 ofIskra[See present volume,
	p. 326.—Ed.]

      together with this letter will easily convince himself that it is
      precisely the author of the letter who labours under an obvious
      misunderstanding. There was no question ofIskra’s“opposing agitational leaflets”; it never entered anyone’s
      head that a newspaper could “replace leaflets”. Our
      correspondent did not notice that leaflets are in fact proclamations. Such
      literature as proclamationscannot be replaced by anythingand
      will always beabsolutely essential—onthis point the
      “Southern Workers” andIskraare in full accord. But
      they are also agreed that this type of literatureis not
      sufficient.If we speak of good housing for the workers and at the
      same time say that good food is not enoughfor them, that would hardly be taken to mean that we are against”
      good food. The question is—which is the highest form ofagitationalliterature? The “Southern Workers”did notsay awordabout the newspaper when they raised
      this question. Their silence could, of course, have been due to local
      circumstances, but we, although we did not in the least wish to enter into
      “disputes” with our correspondents, naturally could not
      refrain from reminding them that the proletariat should also organise its
      own newspaper just as the other classes of the population have done, that
      fragmentary work alone is not enough, and that the regular, active, and
      general work of all localities for a revolutionary organ is essential.

Asfar as the three- or four-page pamphlets are concerned,we did not
	speak“against” themin the least, but merely
	doubted the practicability of a plan to develop them intoregularliterature distributed “simultaneously through
	out Russia”. If they consist of three or four pages, they will be,
	essentially, only proclamations. In all parts of Russia we have many
	very good proclamations that are not in the least heavy reading, both
	student and workers’ proclamations, that sometimes run to six or eight
	small pages. A reallypopularpamphlet, capable ofexplainingeven one single question to a completely unprepared
	worker, would probably be much bigger in size and there would be no need
	and no possibility of distributing it “simultaneously throughout
	Russia” (since it is not only of topical significance). Fully
	recognising, as we do, every variety of political literature, old and
	new, so long as it is really good political literature, we would advise
	working, not upon an invention of a midway type of agitational
	medium— something between leaflet and popular pamphlet, but for a
	revolutionary organ thatreallydeserves the name of periodical
	(appearing, not once, but at least two or four times, a month) and which
	is anAll-Russian organ.